- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Elder Holland said…. Quote:I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction.
A friend of mine goes to church just to keep his marriage and family together. He has no testimony, no feeling of certainty about God or any scripture. And knowing the way he was raised he is being true to the spirit of uncertainty that was around in his childhood. I believe his sincere acknowledgment that he does not know if the LDS church is true is as pleaseing to God for it’s honesty as anyone with a testimony. It’s an interesting journey learning to understand oneself and being able to see some of yourself by looking at others. I have a testimony of the restoration but struggle with being inactive and the motivation to do better. I have no clue how much mercy God is allowed to cut us before justice must be meeted out. I would prefer not to test that one too far. I wonder about my friend who attends church just to keep his family together, does his childhood, the way he was raised, make it OK to not get past his upbringing and be able to be touched by the still small voice? so many questions.jeriboy wrote:Elder Holland said….
I think you’d be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction.
A friend of mine goes to church just to keep his marriage and family together. He has no testimony, no feeling of certainty about God or any scripture. And knowing the way he was raised he is being true to the spirit of uncertainty that was around in his childhood. I believe his sincere acknowledgment that he does not know if the LDS church is true is as pleaseing to God for it’s honesty as anyone with a testimony. It’s an interesting journey learning to understand oneself and being able to see some of yourself by looking at others. I have a testimony of the restoration but struggle with being inactive and the motivation to do better. I have no clue how much mercy God is allowed to cut us before justice must be meeted out. I would prefer not to test that one too far. I wonder about my friend who attends church just to keep his family together, does his childhood, the way he was raised, make it OK to not get past his upbringing and be able to be touched by the still small voice? so many questions.
Awesome thoughts jeriboy. I think God is more merciful than we would like to think.I like Elder Holland too. I love a man who can cry when appropriate. He was the one in California who had to face the media when a gay lds RM killed himself on the door steps of the stake house while he was visiting there. I heard the parents of this young speak about Elder Holland after this happened. He is a very caring man. Here is the book about this: http://deseretbook.com/item/4772927/In_Quiet_Desperation_Understanding_the_Challenge_of_Same_Gender_Attraction Bridget
Quote:Hawkgrrrl said….Only in the sense that some people “need” to be orthodox members. And some “need” to be intellectual members, and some “need” to be free spirited, and some “need” to fulfill their personal dreams. If the church does not have structure or traditions, those folks will create it where it doesn’t exist.
The earth being a globe, it’s people, points on the compass, the variety will get us just what we have had since 1820. Everyone trying to fit into a church that has the express purpose of helping to shape us into exalted beings. I don’t know if any of hawkgrrrl’s orthodox or intellectual types have a better shot at the prize than another, it was beginning to look at the end of her paragraph that she might take a stab at a guess-ta-mation, but I suspect there is room for some real hope, prehaps even for all points of the compass.
Quote:“hawkgrrrl’s orthodox or intellectual types”
??? – Um, just curious how you came to that description and exactly what you mean by it.
Quote:Wordsleuth23 said…. I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
The above is a quote from wordsleuth23, below is my doctored version.
I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, …( has a testimony )…disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history,…( trusts this is Gods restored church and lives by faith that God is pleased with the past and present leaders )… and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism…( has hope of receiving a crown of glory ),,, Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
by Old-Timer » 09 Aug 2009, 15:12 “hawkgrrrl’s orthodox or intellectual types”
??? – Um, just curious how you came to that description and exactly what you mean by it.
That was just two words taken from her quote, certainly nothing negitive was meant.
DUH!! Sorry, jeriboy, it’s been a long week, and I’m really tired. I probably should be in bed and not at a computer.
jeriboy wrote:Quote:Wordsleuth23 said…. I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
The above is a quote from wordsleuth23, below is my doctored version.
I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, …( has a testimony )…disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history,…( trusts this is Gods restored church and lives by faith that God is pleased with the past and present leaders )… and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism…( has hope of receiving a crown of glory ),,, Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
Jeriboy, I like your revised version, it was more thorough/better than my definition.
I can’t add anything to the above really except to say that if the church wishes to avoid accusations of cultishness, then it probably should act as Elder Holland suggests. Purging doesn’t look good to the outside world. John, Thanks for posting this quote. In some ways it is hopeful, but like so many issues the Brethren carefully show one face to the public outside the church while being much harsher within. While Elder Holland says this he is not going to directly contest statements and actions from within the church community like the one in Mormon Matters. And we can all find plenty of quotes both resent and dated from other members of the 12 that are just as intolerant of diversity of opinion of the gospel among the saints as the one in Mormon Matters. If we look to the Brethren on this issue as a block it will just appear that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They will do nothing separately or as a group to encourage this type of tolerant behavior, other than lip service.
The problem in comparing the LDS church with Judaism and Catholicism is we have a completely different pyridine of what it means to be part of the faith.
They both have different groups within them that adhere to the literalness of their faiths beliefs with varying degrees. Both as a Catholic or a Jew I could choice to go to a congregation that would encourage discussion about how literally to take the scriptures and those that would not and still all would be considered part of the greater group. There are congregations of Catholics that do look to Rome as church leaders, but not the mouth piece of God. Some of these groups have openly gay Fathers. The same is true for diffrent Jewish congregations.
As members of the LDS faith we really do not have the same options. We may happen to get a more liberal thinking Bishop, but from the pulpit he would have no real leeway, but to stick to the party line.
When I taught school in Salt Lake City I became friends with a middle school English teacher. He was a return missionary that smoked like a chimney. When I asked him about his belief in the church he bore one of the most moving testimonies I had ever heard of Joseph Smith, and in the same breath he said “that does not mean that Brigham Young didn’t come along and F*** it up.”
He said there are a lot of inactive members in the valley that still feel a strong connection to the church, but do not feel conferrable going to church. He had this dream of renting a building and having a BBQ once a month on a Sunday and calling it the inactive branch. Some how I think this is the type of groups we need to start.
Yes we have forms on the internet like this and NOM, which I think are great, but when we go to church and if we go to church do we not need to at least some what pretend that we are orthodox. Where can We go to church and feel like we can be ourselves or be with like minded people?
I just jumped into this post so I am a little taken aback by this quote of Elder Holland and all the comments. I find the quote very troubling. Remember this is the same Elder Holland that went on a tirad at the last conference literally condeming anyone who questioned the Book of Mormon. How do these quotes from conference stand against the quote starting this thread Quote:For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands. Failed theories about its origins have been born and parroted and have died—from Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young unlearned translator. In this I stand with my own great-grandfather, who said simply enough, “No wicked man could write such a book as this; and no good man would write it, unless it were true and he were commanded of God to do so.”10
I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this latter-day work—and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these, our times—until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text teeming with literary and Semitic complexity without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages—especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers—if that is the case, then such a person, elect or otherwise, has been deceived; and if he or she leaves this Church, it must be done by crawling over or under or around the Book of Mormon to make that exit. In that sense the book is what Christ Himself was said to be: “a stone of stumbling, … a rock of offence,”11 a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work. Witnesses, even witnesses who were for a time hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the plates. “They have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man,” they declared. “Wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.”12
Apparently you are either pathetic, deceived, foolish or mislead and you will find no peace in this life if you do not subscribe to the fact tht the Book of Mormon is 100 percent divine. This very talk was a catalyst for me starting to have major questions about the Book of Mormon. I was so taken aback when I watched him giving this talk all I could think of is what is he trying to hide. That led to more research and I learned alot more about the history of the BoM than I ever knew before and it was not all good.
It may just be me but these two quotes seem directly opposite of each other. I do not see very much tolerance in the conference talk.
Quote:Remember this is the same Elder Holland that went on a tirad at the last conference literally condeming anyone who questioned the Book of Mormon.
I’m going to say this very carefully, but very directly:
One of the reasons I feel so strongly about parsing is that when we don’t parse we end up with statements like the quote above. Cadence, this is not meant as a criticism of you, personally, but that simply isn’t an accurate summary of what Elder Holland said in his talk – when you look closely at the entire talk and don’t take paragraphs out of context of the whole talk. It’s very easy to do with that talk, but he simply didn’t say what your statement says. I know that has been bandied about in lots of places by lots of people, but it’s not an accurate representation of the talk he gave.
I’m not saying I agree with every word in that talk, nor am I saying I wouldn’t have said it a little differently – but I am saying clearly that he didn’t say what you just accused him of saying.
Here on this site, we simply MUST fight the tendency to react emotionally to perceived condemnations when those condemnations aren’t in the actual full context of what someone (anyone) says. Maybe I need to parse that entire talk in a VERY long post, since you can’t pull much out of it in isolation without doing harm to the entire talk, but suffice it to say here that the message above simply isn’t in the talk itself.
Old-Timer wrote:One of the reasons I feel so strongly about parsing is that when we don’t parse we end up with statements like the quote above.
I think that in the case of the recent talk by Brother Holland, parsing has extremely limited value. The mistake was at least as much in the spirit of the delivery as in the words. And that is something that doesn’t seem to lend itself to parsing. I don’t think any subsequent exegesis can supersede in authenticity the innocent, unpremeditated reception of the talk in its original setting. In other words, “I was there. I know what he said and how he said it.”
Brother Holland’s over-the-top talk doesn’t, however, cancel the goodness of his public statement. Each is what it is. I’ll take what I can get.
I enjoy reading the BofM, but don’t feel the need to have a conviction about its origins, just its content. My daughter found our favorite cat in an alley about 10 years ago. She was abandoned, cold, wet, hungry and about 2 weeks old. Can’t I just love her without worrying about how she came to be?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.